Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing

Object

Representation ID: 43847

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: RCA Regeneration Ltd

2.12. We are broadly supportive of the affordable housing policy but would suggest the policy is slightly reworded to make it absolutely clear that those minimum proportions should only be required where viability demonstrates it is deliverable. Setting minimum levels are laudable, but unlikely to make a difference in reality if viability is an issue (as is the case on many BC sites).

2.13. We are broadly supportive of the requirements to make more homes accessible for disabled people.

2.14. The 5% self-build requirement does raise some concerns, however – related to maintaining health and safety on large housing sites, as well as in relation to the ultimate control over phasing. Given the council’s strong reliance on windfall sites – many of which are likely to be self or custom build, we cannot see why the council can justify requesting a proportion of self-build on large housing developments that are proposed for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 43865

Received: 05/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Pegasus

7.8 Policy HOU3 deals with affordable, wheelchair accessible and self-build/custom-build housing. It indicates that developments of 10 or more homes should provide for affordable housing and makes clear that the tenure and type of affordable homes will be determined on a site-by-site basis, based on national planning policy and best available information regarding housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations. Taylor Wimpey supports this approach.
7.9 The Policy goes on to indicate that all developments of 10 or more homes should provide a proportion of wheelchair accessible housing equating to 20% of homes on all brownfield sites and on greenfield sites in lower value zones. In other locations greenfield sites should provide a minimum of 15% of homes to meet the optional Building Regulations Requirement M4(3): Wheelchair User Dwellings and all remaining homes to meet the optional Buildings Regulations Requirement M4(2): Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings. The supporting text sets out that the Black Country SHMA concludes that 17,866 accessible and adaptable homes, including 1,674 wheelchair user homes, will be required by 2039. The text also indicates the provision of new homes meeting the standards would reduce the need for adaptations to be retrofitted to existing stock and would make the housing stock more responsive to the evolving needs of the local population.
7.10 However, the identified demand for wheelchair user homes (1,674 dwellings) would be significantly exceeded due to the application of the policy. If 15% of homes on the housing allocations identified in the Plan were delivered in accordance with this part of the policy, it would equate to 2,196 dwellings (assuming the overall supply would consist of 14,641 dwellings allocated in the Plan). This demonstrates that the policy approach would deliver significantly in excess of the requirement based on just specifically allocated sites and to the exclusion of housing delivered via windfalls, core regeneration areas and strategic centres and development on occupied employment land. This demonstrates that the approach goes beyond what is necessary and places an additional cost burden on all new housing development, thus increasing the cost of new homes, which is not appropriate based on the clear viability difficulties associated with certain locations in the Black Country to deliver new homes. Similarly, the requirement for all dwellings to meet the M4(2) standard is unsupported by evidence of need for such accommodation at the scale indicated in the Policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 43919

Received: 10/10/2021

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Turley Associates

3.53 At the current time the majority of the Councils’ proposed supply (though we dispute the scale of it) will be on brownfield land, which based on draft HOU3 will only deliver 10% affordable housing.
3.54 Any development on land which is currently in the Green Belt will be expected to deliver the higher 30% affordable housing requirement. Wolverhampton is only proposing 1,014 new homes on land currently in the Green Belt – 8% of Wolverhampton’s proposed supply and circa 5% of its total need.
3.55 It is absolutely necessary for Wolverhampton to be identifying sites which can make a more significant contribution to its affordable housing shortfall – such as Barratt’s site at land at Pennwood which proposes affordable housing provision.

Support

Representation ID: 44842

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

Support is given in principle to draft Policy HOU3 reducing the provision of affordable housing on brownfield sites to 10%, where this is financially viable. Whilst the Black Country level work on viability provides a snapshot of the percentage of affordable housing that land can yield based upon land values, this work will not have been informed by intrusive site investigation work to quantify actual costs of redevelopment and therefore whether affordable housing can be delivered.
In our experience, none of our brownfield sites have been able to provide any planning obligations and this has been successfully negotiated at the planning application stage. To further incentivise the redevelopment of brownfield sites before greenfield and to support the regeneration agenda further, it would be preferable if this policy was amended so that affordable housing was exempt on brownfield sites with a greater burden placed on greenfield sites where abnormals costs will be less and sales values likely higher.

Object

Representation ID: 44843

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Ruskin Properties

We object to the inclusion of a requirement to provide M4(2) wheelchair accessible housing given that the government has not yet responded to consultation on raising accessibility standards published in December 2020. On this basis, it is not possible to know whether the provision of M4 (2) homes will become a mandatory requirement through Building Regulations be or whether planning policy will be part of the mechanism to achieve it. Such homes will be land hungry and will reduce the net density on a site overall, which has the potential to conflict with Policy HOU2 as well as impact further upon viability. This policy is premature ahead of the results of the government’s formal consultation on the provision of M4 (2) housing as part of Approved Document M of the Building Regulations.
In terms of the draft policy, support is given to the reference to M4(2) homes not being sought where schemes are not viable. However, no reference is given to local need in relation to accessible homes. This should be evidenced to.

Object

Representation ID: 44897

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Folkes Holdings

Agent: Harris Lamb

P1661
SUBJECT: BLACK COUNTRY PLAN – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

RESPONSE TO POLICY CSP1 – DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (HOUSING DELIVERY)
Housing Requirement
Policy CSP1 – Development Strategy, of the draft Plan provides the overarching policy guidance on housing delivery during the course of the Plan Period. Part 1.(a) of the policy states that during the course of the Plan Period “at least” 47,837 net new homes will be provided in the Black Country. However, the housing target of 47,837 dwellings will not deliver the total number of houses that are required. Table 2 – Black Country Development Strategy 2020-2039, of the draft Plan identifies a need for the development of 76,076 dwellings. The residual requirement of 28,239 dwellings will be directed to other local authority areas through the duty to cooperate.

We have a number of concerns with the overall housing requirement identified in the Plan and the sources of housing land supply that have been identified to meet the target. This has consequential implications for the quantum of development that will be needed to be exported to other local authority areas.

In the first instance, Table 2 of the draft Plan suggests that a total of 76,076 dwellings is required
during the Plan Period. This is, however, less than the Standard Method housing requirement identified by the Black Country Housing Market Assessment 2021 (“BCHMA”), produced by the Black Country Authorities. At paragraph 4.13 it is advised that “the final housing need in the Black Country, assessed using the revised Standard Method, is 4,019 per year”. The Plan period runs from 2020 to 2039. As such, the BCHMA concludes with a total of 76,361 dwellings required during the course of the plan period (4,019dpa x 19 years).

The National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) advises at paragraph 61 that to determine
the “minimum” number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing needs assessment conducted using the Standard Method, unless exceptional circumstances justify an
alternative approach, which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. The draft Plan suggests a minimum housing figure below that identified by the BCHMA, and consequently fails to meet the requirement of the Framework. That being the case, as a very minimum, the overall housing requirement needs to be uplifted by 285 dwellings to be consistent with the Council’s evidenced based documents.
Paragraph 4.14 of the BCHMA advises that whilst paragraph 010 of the PPG identifies a series of
circumstances where it may be appropriate to pursue a higher housing needs figure than is indicated by the Standard Method “this assessment is carried out on the basis that the Standard Method figure set out in the above will apply”. That being the case, the BCHMA does not test whether the minimum standard of housing requirement figure should be increased, in accordance with the requirements of the PPG.

Paragraph ID:2a – 010 – 20201216, of the PPG advises that “there will be circumstances where it is
appropriate to consider whether the actual housing need is higher than the standard method indicates”. This will need to be assessed prior to, and separate from, considering how much of the overall need can be accommodated (and then translated into a housing requirement figure for the strategic policies in the plan). Circumstances where this may be appropriate include, but are not limited to situations where increases in housing need are likely to exceed past trends because of:
• Growth strategies for the area that are likely to be deliverable;
• Strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in the homes needed
locally; or
• An authority agreeing to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities.

We are not aware of any assessment to establish whether the minimum Standard Method housing
requirement should be exceeded. It could be the case that the minimum Standard Method housing requirement is not sufficient to meet the housing needs of the Black Country.

In this regard we note that Table 5.1 of the BCHMA identifies that the percentage of people of working
age in the Black Country will be less in 2039 than it is in 2020. In order to meet the emerging Plan’s economic growth aspirations it is necessary to ensure that a sufficient number of houses are provided to meet the jobs which will be created during the course of the Plan Period. An assessment should be undertaken to establish if the housing requirement needs to be uplifted to support economic growth.

In addition, the demand for affordable housing is a significant factor that should be considered in establishing the housing requirement. Paragraph 6.6 of the BCHMA advises that there is a requirement for 867 affordable properties per year in the Black Country. This is the equivalent of approximately 21.6% of the annualised housing requirement (including the proportion of the housing requirement that will be directed outside of the Plan area). It is expected that the principal way of
delivering this affordable housing would be via Section 106 agreements.

Policy HOU3 – Delivering Affordable Housing, Wheelchair Accessibility and Self Build/Custom Build
Housing, advises that 10% affordable housing will be sought on sites in lower value areas and brownfield sites in medium value zones. 20% affordable housing will be sought on greenfield sites and in medium value areas. On all sites in higher value areas 30% affordable housing will be sought. That being the case, only the sites in the higher value areas deliver more than 21.6% affordable
housing.

The draft Plan does not identify what proportion of the housing requirement is expected to take place
in each of these zones. However, paragraph 6.4 of the Plan advises that 81% of the housing requirement is expected to be provided on brownfield land, and 19% on greenfield land. That being the case, this strongly suggests that the affordable housing policy within the Plan will be incapable of delivering a sufficient quantum of affordable housing to meet their identified need.

We are not aware of any assessment that seeks to establish the relationship between the quantum of
affordable housing required by the BCHMA, and the likely level of affordable housing that it is expected by Policy HOU3 of the Plan will deliver. This is a key piece of evidence that is missing from the emerging Plan. An increase to the minimum housing requirement may be required to ensure that a sufficiently supply of affordable housing is provided.

Drawing these matters together, it is our view that the housing requirement within the plan is not justified given that it is below the minimum Standard Method requirement, and there appears to have been no supporting work undertaken to establish if there is a requirement for an uplift to the minimum Standard Method Housing target on economic or affordability grounds.

Housing Delivery
We also have a number of concerns with the deliverability of various sources of the housing demand supply identified by the Plan. Table 3 – Black Country Housing Land Supply Indicative Phasing 20202039, identifies
the various sources of housing land supply. We have
a number of concerns with the sources of supply,
including:
• Sites with Other Commitment – The sites in this category are expected to deliver 3,802 dwellings during the course of the plan period. It is understood from the Black Country authorities SHLAAs that an “other commitment” is a site with a resolution to grant planning
permission but the Section 106 has not been signed. This source of supply is discounted by 10% in order to allow for non-delivery. It is not clear from the draft Plan how the 10% discount rate has been calculated. However, it is noted that the SHLAAs (eg. Walsall SHLAA 2019 paragraph 17) advise that Other Commitments are discounted by 10% as the adopted Black Country Core Strategy (“BCCS”) applied a discount rate of 10% to commitments. It is advised that a discount rate that is based on past trends may not be an appropriate way of establishing future delivery rates. Housing delivery in the Black Country has been affected by the 2008 recession and a number of government initiatives for improving future delivery, such as help to buy and ISA for first time buyers.

Whilst this may be the case, we would also suggest that it is equally unreliable to take a discount rate from the adopted BCCS, which was published in 2011. The BCCS is in excess of ten years old, and its supporting evidence documents even older. At the very least, a past
trends based analysis should be undertaken in order to see if the discount rate is robust for the Other Commitments category. There is insufficient information available to determine whether or not the discount rate suggested is robust. Furthermore, it is not clear whether
there are sites with a resolution to grant planning permission, but the S.106 has not been signed, where the resolutions are several years old. If the resolution to grant planning permission is more than 6 months old the site should not be included as a source of supply.

• Existing Housing Allocations in Strategic Centres – These sites are expected to provide 4,973
dwellings. This is excluding those sites within the Strategic Centres that already have the benefit of planning permission, a resolution to grant planning permission, or are completed. The Walsall Site Allocations Document was adopted in 2019. The Dudley Borough Development Strategy was adopted in February 2017 and other various Dudley MBC AAPs
were adopted between 2011 and 2017. The Sandwell Site Allocations and Delivery DPD was adopted in December 2012. The Wolverhampton Area Action Plans were adopted between 2014 and 2016. There has, therefore, been a significant period of time for the sites allocated for development in the Strategic Centre to come forward for development. The fact that these
sites have not delivered despite the benefit of a positive planning framework suggests that there may be problems with their delivery. That being the case, the 10% discount rate suggested for these sites is entirely unrealistic.

• Occupied Employment Land - Occupied employment land is expected to deliver 3,091dwellings towards the total housing requirement. This should not be included as a source of supply. There is no guarantee if or when such sites will come forward for development.
Landowner’s intentions may change during the course of the Plan Period. In addition, we have frequently found that industrial values outweigh residential values in large parts of the Black Country. As a consequence, it simply may not be economic to bring a site forward for
residential development.

Furthermore, there is a significant shortfall of employment land within the Black Country, and
the conurbation as a whole. Whilst new employment allocations are proposed by the Plan these will be new build estates where rents will be significantly greater than second hand stock. It is unlikely that businesses that are located on the poorer quality employment sites
will be able to afford to rent or buy a new premises. Secondary, and lower cost stock, plays a vital role in the West Midlands economy. Losing land of this type to residential use may result in businesses closing. We are, therefore, extremely concerned that this source of supply is by and large undeliverable but could also have a detrimental effect on the supply of employment
land through the plan area. We therefore recommend that this source of supply be deleted from the supply. If allocated employment sites come forward for development during the course of the Plan Period they should simply be treated as part of the proposed windfall
allowance.

• Other Allocations - The “Other” allocations within the plan have a 10% discount rate applied. It is not clear how this discount rate has been calculated. However, given the significant proportion of the allocations in the draft Plan that are brownfield sites they are likely to have
delivery constraints. A 10% discount rate is inadequate.

• Additional Site Capacity in Strategic Centres - The sites in this category are due to be identified and allocated through subsequent Local Plans produced later into the plan period. We are concerned that the housing figures identified for these areas are not robust, and ultimately
the plan making process will find that there is not the capacity to deliver this level of development within future Local Plans. A substantial discount rate should, therefore, be applied to sites in this category.

Furthermore, as detailed in our response to policy HOU2, we are concerned that the density requirements identified are unrealistic. The emerging plan seeks to adopt a space standard policy which will increase dwelling sizes impacting upon density. It is not unusual, in our experience, for brownfield sites within the Black Country to have constraints that adversely affect density, such as
mineshafts or their relationship to surrounding uses.
It is, therefore, our view that the density policies are over ambitious and unrealistic, and the densities suggested will not be achieved. This in turn suggests that the capacity of the allocations has been over estimated and housing delivery will be reduced accordingly.

In conclusion, we are concerned that the identified sources of supply will be incapable of meeting that
part of the housing requirement identified by the Plan to be developed in the Black Country. In addition, given the housing requirement should be a minimum there is clearly a distinct advantage in erring on the side of caution, and applying robust and realistic lapse rates to the various sources of supply as if additional housing does come forward this will be of no detriment to the Plan. However, a housing delivery shortfall has the potential to be extremely problematic, causing five year housing land supply issues, failing the Housing Delivery Test and providing much needed market and affordable
housing within the Black Country for those that need it.

Comment

Representation ID: 44940

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

Policy HOU3 - Delivering Affordable, Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build / Custom Build Housing

Part 2
Part 2 of the Policy states that all developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. It advises that the minimum proportion of affordable housing that should be provided is:
a On all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites in medium value zones: 10% affordable housing;
b On greenfield sites in medium value zones: 20% affordable housing;
c On all sites in higher value zones: 30% affordable housing.

13.2 The 2021 Strategic Housing Market Assessment [SHMA] notes the following:
“The total annual affordable housing need in the Black Country of 867 per year (as set out in Chapter 6) represents 21.6% of the annual dwelling growth of 4,019 in the housing market area as assessed using the revised Standard Method. It would be reasonable to expect this proportion of new housing as affordable to be delivered on a large housing site in the Black Country, where a figure of 25% would be plausible (subject to viability). The Councils can therefore be confident that the affordable housing need identified in the model will be addressed by the dwelling growth identified by the Standard Method and no adjustment is required to this figure”.

13.3 Whilst TW supports a differentiated approach to the provision of affordable housing to reflect different value zones in principle, we note that the proposed percentages set out in Policy HOU3 are above the recommendations of the BCP Viability Study.

13.4 We would note that any affordable housing policy requirement needs to be tested though the Viability evidence on an ongoing basis as the BCP progresses to ensure that it accounts for any changes to policy requirements which may have a subsequent impact upon site viability.

13.5 It is also noted that the type and tenure of affordable housing sought is ambiguous. The Framework (§16d) states that policies should be clearly written so that a decision maker knows how to react to a development proposal. To be effective, the BCA should provide further clarification of its requirements, which should be justified by supporting evidence.

Part 4
13.6 Part 4 of Policy HOU3 states that all developments of ten homes or more should provide a proportion of wheelchair accessible housing, where this is financially viable. The stated minimum proportion that should be provided on greenfield sites in medium or higher value zones is 15% of homes to meet the optional Building Regulations Requirement M4(3): Wheelchair User Dwellings and all remaining homes to meet the optional Building Regulations Requirement M4(2): Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings.

13.7 Whilst Taylor Wimpey generally supports the provision of homes that are suitable to meet the needs of older people and disabled people in principle, we object to Part 4 of the policy as we are concerned that the standards proposed are not fully justified and do not accord with the Practice Guidance. The evidence on future need provided in the 2021 SHMA does not support the proportions identified in the policy.

13.8 For M4(3): Wheelchair User Dwellings, the SHMA26 indicates that 1,674 dwellings are required in 2039. It states that 1,456 should be in the general housing stock and 217 in supported accommodation. It indicates that by the end of the plan period, around about 0.3% of the total stock should be available to meet this criteria. However, there is no clear explanation as to how a 15% policy requirement has been derived from this identified need. In addition, it provides no information on the availability of existing stock to meet this need and does not consider the potential for the conversion of existing properties either. The actual likely requirement is therefore likely to be significantly lower than this.

13.9 The evidence does not identify any local circumstances, which demonstrate that the needs of the Black Country differ substantially to those across the West Midlands or England. If the Government had intended that evidence of an ageing population alone justified adoption of optional standards, then such standards would have been incorporated as mandatory in the Building Regulations, which is not currently the case.

13.10 The evidence provided does not therefore justify the 15% requirement identified. In addition, we note that the policy identifies no requirement for the provision of M4(3) dwellings in lower value zones. This does not make any sense as the need for these properties will inevitably be spread through all parts of the BCP area, not just the higher value areas.

13.11 Taylor Wimpey considers that the most effective way to provide sufficient housing to meet M4(3) category requirements in the correct locations would be to increase the proportion of this type of accommodation in specialist housing for older people. This could involve the allocation of specific sites to help meet this need. We recognise that not all wheelchair housing will be provided through such specialist housing and consider that any requirements for M4(3) dwellings on market housing sites could be based on assessments of local need at the time of a planning application.

13.12 For M4(2): Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings, the SHMA identifies that in total 17,866 accessible and adaptable homes are required in 2039 across the Black Country. However, limited evidence has been provided on the size, location, and quality of dwellings needed to address the need identified and it is not therefore clear what requirements are and how they differ across the different authority areas.

13.13 Taylor Wimpey is also concerned that the suitability of existing housing stock has not been properly assessed against the future requirements identified. In this regard, the SHMA notes27 that there is not a detailed profile of the current stock from which to derive a net requirement. In addition, the SHMA28 recognises that the Councils help people to remain in their current home and any adaptions to dwellings provided through this mechanism could reduce the requirement for new homes meeting the M4(2) standard. Improvements to existing homes
funded through Disabled Facilities Grants will inevitably contribute towards this uplift, reducing the need for provision in new housing stock.

13.14 The requirement in Policy HOU3 for all remaining homes to meet the optional Building
Regulations Requirement M4(2) is therefore completely unjustified.

13.15 It is important to note that not all health issues affect housing needs. Many older people already live in the Black Country and are unlikely to move home. No evidence is presented to suggest that households already housed would be prepared to leave their existing homes to move into new dwellings constructed to M4(2) and / or M4(3) standards. Adaption of existing stock will form an important part of the solution.

13.16 For the above reasons, we consider that the percentage provisions for M4(2) housing and M4(3)
housing have not been fully justified and cannot be sought through Part 4 of the policy.

Part 6
13.17 Part 6 of the policy states that on developments of 100 homes or more, where there is currently
a need for self-build and custom build plots identified in the self-build and custom build register for the local authority where the site is located, at least 5% of plots should be made available for self-build or custom build, or sufficient to match the current number on the register if lower. Whilst it is accepted that new development should contribute to achieving an appropriate mix of housing, Taylor Wimpey objects to Part 6 for a number of reasons.

13.18 Councils have a legal obligation to grant sufficient planning permissions to meet the demand for self and custom build properties. Taylor Wimpey considers the current policy approach to be ineffective because it would not guarantee that the Council’s obligation to ensure enough self and custom build properties have been provided to meet demand. It cannot be known what
level of provision will be achieved on schemes by market housing developers and when; and
therefore, the Council cannot rely on these sites as their supply for self-build and custom-build housing.

13.19 The evidence provided in the SHMA also indicates that demand is low across the Black Country with only 32 individuals on the self-build register in Walsall and 8 in Dudley. Data from the Self Build Portal also indicates that demand is lower than average. There is therefore no clear justification for the 5% requirement identified.

13.20 Market Housing development and Self or custom build rarely work together. Providing self or custom build on market housing sites is unlikely to work and will severely impact upon a scheme layout. It will also create issues with the apportionment of planning obligations between the housing market area and self -build plots. In addition, it is unlikely that self and custom build serviced plots on residential sites of more than 100 dwellings will appeal to those wishing to build their own home. No justification has been provided for the 10 dwelling threshold identified either.

13.21 In addition, the impact of this policy requirement on scheme viability does not appear to have been considered in the BCP Viability Study.

13.22 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that this policy requirement should be deleted and the Councils should identify stand alone sites which are specifically allocated to meet the local demand for self and custom build dwellings.

Parts 7 and 8
The option to provide to provide financial viability assessments where affordable housing or wheelchair accessibility requirements can be demonstrated to make the development unviable, is welcomed. However, the BCP authorities should ensure that this situation is avoided where possible by ensuring the requirements of the policy are properly justified and tested through the
viability evidence informing the BCP.

Comment

Representation ID: 44973

Received: 09/03/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Lichfields

13.0 Policy HOU3 - Delivering Affordable,
Wheelchair Accessible and Self Build /
Custom Build Housing
Part 2
Part 2 of the Policy states that all developments of ten homes or more should provide a
proportion of affordable housing, where this is financially viable. It advises that the minimum
proportion of affordable housing that should be provided is:
a On all sites in lower value zones and brownfield sites in medium value zones: 10%
affordable housing;
b On greenfield sites in medium value zones: 20% affordable housing;
c On all sites in higher value zones: 30% affordable housing.
13.2 The 2021 Strategic Housing Market Assessment [SHMA] notes the following:
“The total annual affordable housing need in the Black Country of 867 per year (as set out in
Chapter 6) represents 21.6% of the annual dwelling growth of 4,019 in the housing market
area as assessed using the revised Standard Method. It would be reasonable to expect this
proportion of new housing as affordable to be delivered on a large housing site in the Black
Country, where a figure of 25% would be plausible (subject to viability). The Councils can
therefore be confident that the affordable housing need identified in the model will be
addressed by the dwelling growth identified by the Standard Method and no adjustment is
required to this figure”.
13.3 Whilst TW supports a differentiated approach to the provision of affordable housing to reflect
different value zones in principle, we note that the proposed percentages set out in Policy HOU3
are above the recommendations of the BCP Viability Study.
13.4 We would note that any affordable housing policy requirement needs to be tested though the
Viability evidence on an ongoing basis as the BCP progresses to ensure that it accounts for any
changes to policy requirements which may have a subsequent impact upon site viability.
13.5 It is also noted that the type and tenure of affordable housing sought is ambiguous. The
Framework (§16d) states that policies should be clearly written so that a decision maker knows
how to react to a development proposal. To be effective, the BCA should provide further
clarification of its requirements, which should be justified by supporting evidence.
Part 4
13.6 Part 4 of Policy HOU3 states that all developments of ten homes or more should provide a
proportion of wheelchair accessible housing, where this is financially viable. The stated
minimum proportion that should be provided on greenfield sites in medium or higher value
zones is 15% of homes to meet the optional Building Regulations Requirement M4(3):
Wheelchair User Dwellings and all remaining homes to meet the optional Building Regulations
Requirement M4(2): Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings.
13.7 Whilst Taylor Wimpey generally supports the provision of homes that are suitable to meet the
needs of older people and disabled people in principle, we object to Part 4 of the policy as we are
concerned that the standards proposed are not fully justified and do not accord with the Practice
Guidance25. The evidence on future need provided in the 2021 SHMA does not support the
proportions identified in the policy.
13.8 For M4(3): Wheelchair User Dwellings, the SHMA26 indicates that 1,674 dwellings are required
in 2039. It states that 1,456 should be in the general housing stock and 217 in supported
accommodation. It indicates that by the end of the plan period, around about 0.3% of the total
stock should be available to meet this criteria. However, there is no clear explanation as to how
a 15% policy requirement has been derived from this identified need. In addition, it provides no
information on the availability of existing stock to meet this need and does not consider the
potential for the conversion of existing properties either. The actual likely requirement is
therefore likely to be significantly lower than this.
13.9 The evidence does not identify any local circumstances, which demonstrate that the needs of the
Black Country differ substantially to those across the West Midlands or England. If the
Government had intended that evidence of an ageing population alone justified adoption of
optional standards, then such standards would have been incorporated as mandatory in the
Building Regulations, which is not currently the case.
13.10 The evidence provided does not therefore justify the 15% requirement identified. In addition,
we note that the policy identifies no requirement for the provision of M4(3) dwellings in lower
value zones. This does not make any sense as the need for these properties will inevitably be
spread through all parts of the BCP area, not just the higher value areas.
13.11 Taylor Wimpey considers that the most effective way to provide sufficient housing to meet
M4(3) category requirements in the correct locations would be to increase the proportion of this
type of accommodation in specialist housing for older people. This could involve the allocation
of specific sites to help meet this need. We recognise that not all wheelchair housing will be
provided through such specialist housing and consider that any requirements for M4(3)
dwellings on market housing sites could be based on assessments of local need at the time of a
planning application.
13.12 For M4(2): Accessible and Adaptable Dwellings, the SHMA identifies that in total 17,866
accessible and adaptable homes are required in 2039 across the Black Country. However,
limited evidence has been provided on the size, location, and quality of dwellings needed to
address the need identified and it is not therefore clear what requirements are and how they
differ across the different authority areas.
13.13 Taylor Wimpey is also concerned that the suitability of existing housing stock has not been
properly assessed against the future requirements identified. In this regard, the SHMA notes27
that there is not a detailed profile of the current stock from which to derive a net requirement.
In addition, the SHMA28 recognises that the Councils help people to remain in their current
home and any adaptions to dwellings provided through this mechanism could reduce the
requirement for new homes meeting the M4(2) standard. Improvements to existing homes
funded through Disabled Facilities Grants will inevitably contribute towards this uplift, reducing
the need for provision in new housing stock.
13.14 The requirement in Policy HOU3 for all remaining homes to meet the optional Building
Regulations Requirement M4(2) is therefore completely unjustified.
13.15 It is important to note that not all health issues affect housing needs. Many older people already
live in the Black Country and are unlikely to move home. No evidence is presented to suggest
25 Planning Practice Guidance ID: 56-007-20150327
26 The Black Country Housing Market Assessment – March 2021 §7.40
27 The Black Country Housing Market Assessment – March 2021 §7.38
28 The Black Country Housing Market Assessment – March 2021 §7.42
that households already housed would be prepared to leave their existing homes to move into
new dwellings constructed to M4(2) and / or M4(3) standards. Adaption of existing stock will
form an important part of the solution.
13.16 For the above reasons, we consider that the percentage provisions for M4(2) housing and M4(3)
housing have not been fully justified and cannot be sought through Part 4 of the policy.
Part 6
13.17 Part 6 of the policy states that on developments of 100 homes or more, where there is currently
a need for self-build and custom build plots identified in the self-build and custom build register
for the local authority where the site is located, at least 5% of plots should be made available for
self-build or custom build, or sufficient to match the current number on the register if lower.
Whilst it is accepted that new development should contribute to achieving an appropriate mix of
housing, Taylor Wimpey objects to Part 6 for a number of reasons.
13.18 Councils have a legal obligation to grant sufficient planning permissions to meet the demand for
self and custom build properties. Taylor Wimpey considers the current policy approach to be
ineffective because it would not guarantee that the Council’s obligation to ensure enough self
and custom build properties have been provided to meet demand. It cannot be known what
level of provision will be achieved on schemes by market housing developers and when; and
therefore, the Council cannot rely on these sites as their supply for self-build and custom-build
housing.
13.19 The evidence provided in the SHMA also indicates that demand is low across the Black Country
with only 32 individuals on the self-build register in Walsall and 8 in Dudley. Data from the Self
Build Portal also indicates that demand is lower than average. There is therefore no clear
justification for the 5% requirement identified.
13.20 Market Housing development and Self or custom build rarely work together. Providing self or
custom build on market housing sites is unlikely to work and will severely impact upon a
scheme layout. It will also create issues with the apportionment of planning obligations
between the housing market area and self -build plots. In addition, it is unlikely that self and
custom build serviced plots on residential sites of more than 100 dwellings will appeal to those
wishing to build their own home. No justification has been provided for the 10 dwelling
threshold identified either.
13.21 In addition, the impact of this policy requirement on scheme viability does not appear to have
been considered in the BCP Viability Study.
13.22 Taylor Wimpey therefore considers that this policy requirement should be deleted and the
Councils should identify stand alone sites which are specifically allocated to meet the local
demand for self and custom build dwellings.
Parts 7 and 8
The option to provide to provide financial viability assessments where affordable housing or
wheelchair accessibility requirements can be demonstrated to make the development unviable,
is welcomed. However, the BCP authorities should ensure that this situation is avoided where
possible by ensuring the requirements of the policy are properly justified and tested through the
viability evidence informing the BCP.

Comment

Representation ID: 46185

Received: 11/10/2021

Respondent: Vulcan Property II Limited

Agent: Maddox Planning

Supported is the acknowledgement in HOU3 (1) and HOU 3 (2) that the range of tenures to be provided and the proportion of any affordable housing should both be dependent upon an assessment of financial viability. HOU3 (3) effectively summarises a justifiable position that ‘The tenure and type of affordable homes sought will be determined on a site by site basis, based on national planning policy and best available information regarding local housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations’.

However, the reference to a ‘minimum proportion of affordable housing’ to be provided is inconsistent with the earlier stance on viability and potentially ambiguous, given that there will be some sites where no affordable housing is financially viable. Paragraph 16 of the Framework sets out that development plan policy should be ‘…clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals’. The inconsistency between dependence upon financial viability and a minimum requirement falls short of being unambiguous. This element fails the test of soundness and is therefore inconsistent with the Framework.

A policy requirement for a minimum proportion of new housing be designed to meet M4(2)/M4(3) standards is unclear and ambiguous in the context of provision also being said to be dependent upon whether this is financially viable. This element fails the test of soundness and is therefore inconsistent with the Framework.

Clarity would be provided through reference to the optional NDSS

Comment

Representation ID: 47040

Received: 13/09/2022

Respondent: HIMOR

Agent: Turley Associates

At the current time the majority of the Councils’ proposed supply (though we dispute the scale of it) will be on brownfield land, which based on draft HOU3 will only deliver 10% affordable housing.

Any development on land which is currently in the Green Belt will be expected to deliver the higher 30% affordable housing requirement. Sandwell is only proposing 171 new homes on land currently in the Green Belt – 2% of Sandwell’s proposed supply and 0.5% of its total need.

This is against a backdrop of chronic under delivery of affordable housing in Sandwell, as demonstrated by Tetlow King’s Affordable Housing Statement (July 2020) (Appendix 1).Between 2004/05 and 2018/19, despite gross completions of 3,309 affordable homes, there has been a net reduction in -454 affordable homes from the same period. This is an impact of Right to Buy and is an issue not unique to Sandwell.

Based on the above it is absolutely necessary for Sandwell to be identifying sites which can make a more significant contribution to its affordable housing shortfall – such as HIMOR’s site at Great Barr which proposes a policy compliant 30% affordable housing provision.